DOCSLIB.ORG

In Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks PREDICTING HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR INVASIVE VELVET GRASS (HOLCUS LANATUS) IN YOSEMITE, KINGS CANYON, AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS By Erin Rose Degenstein A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Natural Resources: Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences Committee Membership Dr. Alison O’Dowd, Committee Chair Dr. James Graham, Committee Member Dr. Michael Mesler, Committee Member Dr. Yvonne Everett, Natural Resources Program Graduate Coordinator December 2015 ABSTRACT PREDICTING HABITAT SUITABILITY OF INVASIVE VELVET GRASS (HOLCUS LANATUS) IN YOSEMITE, KINGS CANYON, AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS Erin Rose Degenstein In order to restore and maintain natural ecosystems in wilderness areas, it is crucial that land managers understand which ecosystems are most threatened by invasive plant species and where to search for new infestations. Limited personnel resources and vast areas of rugged terrain make targeted early detection surveys an urgent need. Habitat suitability modeling is a spatial analysis tool that provides further understanding and graphical representation of the potential distribution and spread of invasive plant species. Velvet grass (Holcus lanatus) is a non-native perennial grass that aggressively invades wet meadows in the Sierra Nevada mountain range of California. This study used 2,865 presence locations of velvet grass in Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite National Parks. Maximum Entropy (Maxent) modeling software was used to develop three different habitat suitability maps: 1) a 909-meter resolution map based on climate data, 2) a 10-meter resolution map based on terrain and vegetation features, and 3) a 10-meter resolution map with terrain and vegetation features, also using elevation data as a surrogate for climate data. All models were tested for area under the receiver operating curve and Aikake’s Information Criterion. The vegetation and terrain-based models showed high habitat suitability for un-infested areas of all three national parks. The ii climate-based model, which could be used to predict habitat suitability in a changing global climate, was limited by its coarse spatial resolution of 909 square meters in an area with heterogeneous topographic features. The 10-meter resolution map using elevation as a surrogate served as a combination between the other two models. All models had high areas under the receiver operating curves, but the high-resolution models using fewer predictor layers had much higher Akaike Information Criterion scores. Separate maps of Yosemite National Park were also generated to test whether adding soil data improved model performance. Adding soil data improved the area under the receiver operating curve of the Yosemite model, but decreased the Akaike Information Criterion score. These models reveal characteristics that are common in areas infested by H. lanatus, such as wetter areas, flatter slopes, and higher temperatures, and highlights un-infested areas that could be future suitable habitat. Because of the high correlation between elevation and different climate variables in the three National Parks, the map using elevation as a surrogate for climate variables provides useful information at a fine enough resolution (10 meters) that it could be used by managers and field crews to help prioritize early detection surveys. Additional analysis is needed to determine the impact of potential vectors (i.e., pack stock, hikers, and rivers) on the location and likelihood of future infestations. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere thanks to the faculty, staff, and students at Humboldt State University, including Dr. Alison O’Dowd and Dr. James Graham (Environmental Science and Management), Dr. Michael Mesler (Botany), Dr. Monica Stephens (Geography), Humboldt State Institute for Cartographic Design, Humboldt State Institute for Spatial Analysis, Humboldt State Geospatial Club. Thank you to the Departments of Resource Management and Science at Yosemite and Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Parks, including Charles Repath, Matt Bahm, Garrett Dickman, Athena Demetry, Rich Thiel, Ginger Bradshaw, Lizo Meyer, Sylvia Haultain, Laura Pilewski, Jessica Miles, and Corie Cann. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Invasive Plants ................................................................................................................ 1 Invasive Plant Management in Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite National Parks ............................................................................................................................ 3 Holcus lanatus Background ........................................................................................ 7 Holcus lanatus in Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks ................. 8 Geographic Information Systems and Invasive Plant Management ............................... 9 Research Objective ....................................................................................................... 10 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 11 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 11 Data Preparation ........................................................................................................... 16 Predictor Layer Selection .............................................................................................. 16 Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Park Models ................................ 18 Model Parameter Selection ........................................................................................... 19 Assessing Model Performance ...................................................................................... 20 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 22 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 22 Model Parameters ......................................................................................................... 22 Model Performance ....................................................................................................... 27 v Predicted Surfaces ......................................................................................................... 28 Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Park Models ................................ 28 Yosemite Models ...................................................................................................... 42 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 46 Model Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 46 Predictor Layer Selection and Performance ................................................................. 47 Predicted Surfaces ......................................................................................................... 49 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 51 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 54 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of actively controlled invasive plant species in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks during Fiscal Year 2013. ............................................................................ 6 Table 2. Descriptions and sources of geospatial data used for this study. SEKI = Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, and YOSE = Yosemite National Park. ..................... 15 Table 3. Predictor layers considered for all models in this study. .................................... 17 Table 4. Pearson's correlation results of elevation and seven BioClim variables from 1,334,428 randomly selected points within the Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Park boundaries. ................................................................................................. 19 Table 5. Summary of AUC and AIC results for each Maxent model. .............................. 27 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The location of Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks within the state of California with reference to major cities. ......................................................... 4 Figure 2. This point density map shows the distribution of known H. lanatus presence points in Yosemite National Park. 1,572 of the occurrence points used in this study fell within the boundary of Yosemite National Park. Red (highest) and yellow (lowest) areas represent the density of occurrence points per km2. ........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Relatives of Temperate Fruits) of the Book Series, "Wild Crop Relatives: Genetic, Genomic and Breeding Resources Ed C
    Volume 6 (Relatives of Temperate Fruits) of the book series, "Wild Crop Relatives: Genetic, Genomic and Breeding Resources ed C. Kole 2011 p179-197 9 Rubus J. Graham* and M. Woodhead Scottish Crop Research Institute, Dundee, DD2 5DA, UK *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract The Rosaceae family consists of around 3, 000 species of which 500 belong to the genus Rubus. Ploidy levels range from diploid to dodecaploid with a genomic number of 7, and members can be difficult to classify into distinct species due to hybridization and apomixes. Species are distributed widely across Asia, Europe, North and South America with the center of diversity now considered to be in China, where there are 250-700 species of Rubus depending on the taxonomists. Rubus species are an important horticultural source of income and labor being produced for the fresh and processing markets for their health benefits. Blackberries and raspberries have a relatively short history of less than a century as cultivated crops that have been enhanced through plant breeding and they are only a few generations removed from their wild progenitor species. Rubus sp. are typically found as early colonizers of disturbed sites such as pastures, along forest edges, in forest clearings and along roadsides. Blackberries are typically much more tolerant of drought, flooding and high temperatures, while red raspberries are more tolerant of cold winters. Additionally, they exhibit vigorous vegetative reproduction by either tip layering or root suckering, permitting Rubus genotypes to cover large areas. The attractiveness of the fruits to frugivores, especially birds, means that seed dispersal can be widespread with the result that Rubus genotypes can very easily be spread to new sites and are very effective, high-speed invaders.
    [Show full text]
  • F a C T S H E E T Blackberries
    JEFFERSON COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD F A C T S H E E T BLACKBERRIES Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) Himalayan blackberry stems (canes) can grow to 9 feet in height but often trail along the ground, growing 20-40 feet long. Thorns grow along the stems as well as on the leaves and leaf stalks. Himalayan blackberries have five distinct leaflets; each leaflet has a toothed margin and is generally oval in shape. Canes start producing berries in their second year. Himalayan blackberry can be evergreen, depending on the site. Rose family. Himalayan blackberry Himalayan blackberry Evergreen blackberry The leaflets of evergreen blackberry are deeply lobed, making it easy to distinguish from WHY BE CONCERNED? Himalayan blackberry. Both Himalayan and evergreen DISTRIBUTION: blackberries form impenetrable Himalayan blackberry is extremely visible in thickets, consisting of both dead and most of Jefferson County, growing along live canes. These thickets out-compete roadsides, over fences and other vegetation, and native vegetation and are a good invading many open areas. Evergreen source of food and shelter for rats. blackberry is more common in the West end of the county, where it has been seen to invade Both Himalayan and evergreen riparian areas. blackberries are Class C Weeds 380 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 379-5610 Ext. 205 [email protected] http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeedBoard ECOLOGY: . Seeds can be spread by birds, humans and other mammals. The canes often cascade outwards, forming mounds, and can root at the tip when they hit the ground, expanding the infestation .
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 BGSS Abstract Book UPDATED
    th 26 Annual Biology Graduate Student Symposium Program and Abstracts Oregon State University Mark O. Hatfield Marine Science Center Newport, Oregon March 2nd, 2013 Table of Contents Page Message from 2013 Organizing Committee 1 Acknowledgements 2 General Information 2 Schedule of Talks 3 Keynote Speaker 4 Oral Presentation Abstracts 4 Poster Presentation Abstracts 10 Map of the Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC) 13 Directions to the Rental House from HMSC 14 Message from the 2013 Organizing Committee th Welcome to the 26 Annual Biology Graduate Student Symposium! This conference, organized by and for graduate students, brings together students from all the life science departments at Oregon State University. It is a forum to share research with our peers and to facilitate a better appreciation of the breadth of biological investigation that occurs at our university. This gathering is an opportunity to broaden our outlook on the study of biology; to discuss graduate life and current events; and encourage interactions between future researchers in the various life sciences. We hope you have a productive conference and that you will bring away a positive experience to share with other students. 2013 Organizing Committee Casey Benkwitt Elizabeth Cerny-Chipman Cammie Crowder Emily Hartfield Tye Kindinger Sheila Kitchen Dani Long Trang Nguyen Jessie Reimer Chenchen Shen Hannah Tavalire 1 Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the support of the following sponsors: OSU Departments: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Department of Zoology College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences College of Education College of Science Graduate School Venue: Hatfield Marine Science Center of Oregon State University Refreshments and Food: First Alternative Co-Op Fred Meyer Rogue Brewery Safeway General Information Presentations: The symposium will take place in the Auditorium at the Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC) (map – p.
    [Show full text]
  • Adlumia Fungosa (Aiton) Greene Ex Britton
    Adlumia fungosa (Aiton) Greene ex Britton Common Names: Allegheny vine, Climbing Fumitory, Mountain-fringe (1, 3) Etymology: Adlumia for John Adlum, amateur botanist of the late 18th century and early 19th century; fungosa: from the Greek ‘fung’, meaning spongy or mushroom-like (5, 7). Botanical synonyms: Fumaria fungosa (Aiton), Bicuculla fungosa (Aiton) Kuntze, Adlumia cirrhosa (Raf.), Fumaria recta (Michx.), Bicuculla fungosa (Aiton), Bicuculla fumarioides (Borkh.), Corydalis fungosa (Aiton) (3, 11, 14). FAMILY: Papaveraceae (the poppy family) Quick Notable Features: ¬ Spongy, tube-like flowers, each individual flower lasting all summer ¬ Prehensile, climbing leaves ¬ Short, often un-noticeable petiole Plant Height: A. fungosa can climb to 4m, but averages 3m (4, 8). Subspecies/varieties: none found (3) Most Likely Confused with: Rosa setigera and Rubus laciniatus, as well as other Fumarioideae species, some trifoliate Fabaceae (most notably Amphicarpaea bracteata and Lespedeza procumbens), and Ranunculaceae climbers like Clematis virginiana and C. occidentalis. Habitat Preference: A. fungosa prefers full sun, although it can tolerate shade. It is often found in moist or freshly burned woods, as well on rocky slopes and slightly acidic soils. It prefers sites protected from wind (8, 12). It was reported in 1999 in Great Smoky Mountains National Park growing on Betula lenta along streams at 2670m elevation (21). Geographic Distribution in Michigan: Allegheny-vine is found sporadically in Michigan 1 (in a geographic sense; habitat analysis may provide some explanation as to why). It is found in the following counties: Berrien, Charlevoix, Chippewa, Delta, Hillsdale, Ingham, Ishpeming, Kent, Luce, Mackinack, Menominee, Muskegon, Ottawa, Presque Isle, St. Clair, Van Buren, Washtenaw, and Wayne (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon City Nuisance Plant List
    Nuisance Plant List City of Oregon City 320 Warner Milne Road , P.O. Box 3040, Oregon City, OR 97045 Phone: (503) 657-0891, Fax: (503) 657-7892 Scientific Name Common Name Acer platanoides Norway Maple Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Aegopodium podagraria and variegated varieties Goutweed Agropyron repens Quack grass Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven Alliaria officinalis Garlic Mustard Alopecuris pratensis Meadow foxtail Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernalgrass Arctium minus Common burdock Arrhenatherum elatius Tall oatgrass Bambusa sp. Bamboo Betula pendula lacinata Cutleaf birch Brachypodium sylvaticum False brome Bromus diandrus Ripgut Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome Bromus inermis Smooth brome-grasses Bromus japonicus Japanese brome-grass Bromus sterilis Poverty grass Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass Buddleia davidii (except cultivars and varieties) Butterfly bush Callitriche stagnalis Pond water starwort Cardaria draba Hoary cress Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle Carduus nutans Musk thistle Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Carduus tenufolius Slender flowered thistle Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted knapweed Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed Centaurea jacea Brown knapweed Centaurea pratensis Meadow knapweed Chelidonium majou Lesser Celandine Chicorum intybus Chicory Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Cirsium vulgare Common Thistle Clematis ligusticifolia Western Clematis Clematis vitalba Traveler’s Joy Conium maculatum Poison-hemlock Convolvulus arvensis Field Morning-glory 1 Nuisance Plant List
    [Show full text]
  • Rubus Laciniatus Willd. (Rosaceae), an Introduced Species New in the Flora of Serbia and the Balkans
    42 (2): (2018) 255-258 Short Communication Rubus laciniatus Willd. (Rosaceae), an introduced species new in the flora of Serbia and the Balkans Zoran Krivošej1✳, Danijela Prodanović2, Nusret Preljević3 and Bojana Veljković3 1 University of Priština, Faculty of Natural Science, Lole Ribara 29, 38220 Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia 2 University of Priština, Faculty of Agriculture Lešak, Kopaonička bb, 38219 Lešak, Serbia 3 State University of Novi Pazar, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Vuka Karadžića bb, 36300 Novi Pazar, Serbia ABSTRACT: Rubus laciniatus has been found as a species new for the flora of Serbia during floristic investigation in the Ibar river valley. It was found on serpentine terrains near the town of Raška (SW Serbia). This is the single known locality of the given species on the Balkan Peninsula. Data on morphology, distribution, and habitat preferences of the species are provided, and the possible pathways of its introduction in Serbia are assessed. Keywords: Rubus laciniatus, blackberry, new record, Ibar river valley Received: 20 March 2018 Revision accepted: 11 July 2018 UDC: 634.71:581.95(497.11) (292.464) DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1468362 One of the largest of plant genera, Rubus L. (Rosaceae) be in Southwest China (Lu 1983), since it is geologically has worldwide distribution and is variously classified archaic and was not seriously covered by glaciers dur- into 12 or 15 subgenera (Jennings 1988). According to ing the Quaternary (Gu et al. 1993). In Europe, the ge- The Plant List (2013), 1568 species are accepted on the nus Rubus has its centre of diversity in the Atlantic and global level and there are also 5162 unresolved names.
    [Show full text]
  • Yosemite National Park U.S
    National Park Service Yosemite National Park U.S. Department of the Interior Invasive Plant Management Plan Update Environmental Assessment In 2008, Yosemite National Park created the Invasive Plant Management Plan (2008 IPMP) to provide a comprehensive, prioritized program of invasive plant prevention, early detection, control, systematic monitoring, and research. The 2009 Big Meadow Fire, and issues related to managing Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and other plants, highlighted the need for a more adaptive, programmatic plan that offers additional tools necessary to address the threat that invasive plants pose to park resources. Yosemite National Park is updating the 2008 IPMP to provide additional methods that can increase the effectiveness of the park’s invasive plant management efforts. Invasive The spread of invasive species is recognized as one of the major factors contributing to ecosystem change and instability throughout the world. An invasive species is “a non-native Species….. species whose introduction does, or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm or What are they harm to human, animal, or plant health” (Executive Order 13112, 1999). These species have and why are the ability to displace or eradicate native species, alter fire regimes, damage infrastructure, and threaten human livelihoods. they a problem? Invasive species are changing the iconic landscapes of our national parks. In areas dominated by non-native plant species, native plant populations can be reduced to small, isolated populations, or even driven to local extinction. As native plants decline in numbers, so may the wildlife that depend on them for food. Invasive plants can harm the visitor’s experience by replacing the park’s spectacular and diverse displays of showy wildflowers with large, unattractive monocultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackberry (Rubus Armeniacus/Discolor/Procerus)
    Best Practices for Invasive Species Management in Garry Oak and Associated Ecosystems: Evergreen Blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) and Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus/discolor/procerus) Assess the site characteristics and your available resources to help you decide where to take management action, what action to take, and when. These decisions should be made within the context of the overall restoration objectives (and restoration plan, if one exists). Before proceeding, be aware that it is very important to not confuse Evergreen blackberry (R. laciniatis) with the native Rubus ursinus. Evergreen blackberry is often found in association with Himalayan blackberry. If Evergreen blackberry is found alone and you are uncertain you have identified it correctly, leave it alone. Also leave it alone if it is in trailing form (rather than upright); you may damage understory vegetation by trying to remove it. a) Deciding where to take action Factor 1: Blackberry density Survey the areas in the GOE where blackberry occurs. Sketch-out and label these areas “zone 1”, “zone 2” or “zone 3” on your sketch map. Use the following descriptions: Zone 1 satellite patches (from a few canes, to a 5 foot by 5 foot patch) Zone 2 edges around larger patches Zone 3 larger patches (larger than 5’ by 5’) Where to focus your effort? Follow the Priority Principle: contain the invasive species first, then reduce its amount! The highest priority is to prevent further spread of blackberry. Only take action to reduce the “footprint” of the blackberry invasion after it is contained. Therefore Zones 1 and 2 should be your first priority, and you should only move into Zones 3 areas when blackberry has been successfully removed from Zones 1 and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • We Hope You Find This Field Guide a Useful Tool in Identifying Native Shrubs in Southwestern Oregon
    We hope you find this field guide a useful tool in identifying native shrubs in southwestern Oregon. 2 This guide was conceived by the “Shrub Club:” Jan Walker, Jack Walker, Kathie Miller, Howard Wagner and Don Billings, Josephine County Small Woodlands Association, Max Bennett, OSU Extension Service, and Brad Carlson, Middle Rogue Watershed Council. Photos: Text: Jan Walker Max Bennett Max Bennett Jan Walker Financial support for this guide was contributed by: • Josephine County Small • Silver Springs Nursery Woodlands Association • Illinois Valley Soil & Water • Middle Rogue Watershed Council Conservation District • Althouse Nursery • OSU Extension Service • Plant Oregon • Forest Farm Nursery Acknowledgements Helpful technical reviews were provided by Chris Pearce and Molly Sullivan, The Nature Conservancy; Bev Moore, Middle Rogue Watershed Council; Kristi Mergenthaler and Rachel Showalter, Bureau of Land Management. The format of the guide was inspired by the OSU Extension Service publication Trees to Know in Oregon by E.C. Jensen and C.R. Ross. Illustrations of plant parts on pages 6-7 are from Trees to Know in Oregon (used by permission). All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Book formatted & designed by: Flying Toad Graphics, Grants Pass, Oregon, 2007 3 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 4 Plant parts ................................................................................... 6 How to use the dichotomous keys ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • NAME of SPECIES: Rubus Armeniacus Focke Synonyms: R
    NAME OF SPECIES: Rubus armeniacus Focke Synonyms: R. discolor Weihe & Nees, R. hedycarpus var. armeniacus (Focke) Focke, R. procerus auct. non P.J. Mull. Ex Genev Common Name: Himalayan blackberry, Himalaya giant Cultivars? YES NO blackberry, Himalaya-berry A. CURRENT STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION I. In Wisconsin? 1. YES NO 2. Abundance: None 3. Geographic Range: N/A 4. Habitat Invaded: Pastures, riparian areas, wastelands, fence lines, forest plantations, roadsides, creek gullies, river flats and right-of-ways (1, 2) Disturbed Areas Undisturbed Areas 5. Historical Status and Rate of Spread in Wisconsin: N/A 6. Proportion of potential range occupied: Low II. Invasive in Similar Climate 1. YES NO Zones Where (include trends): Western United States, Midwestern states inlcuding southern Il, Missouri, Arkansas and the southeastern US (1) III. Invasive in Which Habitat 1. Upland Wetland Dune Prairie Aquatic Types Forest Grassland Bog Fen Swamp Marsh Lake Stream Other: IV. Habitat Affected 1. Soil types favored or tolerated: Wet spots on both acidic and alkaline soils (2) 2. Conservation significance of threatened habitats: Forms dense thickets in wet areas, potentially inhibiting medium and large animals’ access to water (2) V. Native Range and Habitat 1. List countries and native habitat types: Western Europe (2) VI. Legal Classification 1. Listed by government entities? WA and OR Noxious Weeds Lists (1) 2. Illegal to sell? YES NO Notes: Cannot import to United States from other countries without special permit (4) B. ESTABLISHMENT POTENTIAL AND LIFE HISTORY TRAITS I. Life History 1. Type of plant: Annual Biennial Monocarpic Perennial Herbaceous Perennial Vine Shrub Tree 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (2MB)
    MAGYAR NYELVŐR 137. ÉVF. * 2013. JÚLIUS–SZEPTEMBER * 3. SZÁM A Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság működésének kezdetei 1905-ben Kik alkották a társaság tagságát a megalakulást követő évben?*1 1. Szily Kálmán a Magyar Nyelv 1906. évi kötetének az elején Olvasóinkhoz cí- men röviden utalt a Társaság és folyóirata indulásával kapcsolatos aggodalmaira, de – állapítja meg ugyanakkor – ez utóbbiak feleslegesnek bizonyultak. Meg is in- dokolta miért: „Társaságunk tagjai a lefolyt évben oly mértékben felszaporodtak s folyóiratunk köré annyi előfizető sorakozott, hogy semmit sem kellett Semsey Andor adományából elköltenünk s az egészet alaptőkénkhez csatolhattuk, sőt még ezen felül is jelentékeny összeggel szaporíthattuk a Társaság vagyonát. Társasá- gunk és folyóiratunk léte ez idő szerint tehát biztosítva van” (Szily 1906: 1–2). Felidézte aztán a Társaság alapszabályaiban rögzített feladatokat. Megjegyzem még, hogy Bárczi tanár úr is a Társaság gyors felvirágzásáról beszélt a hatvanéves jubileumon (Bárczi 1965: 5). Szily Kálmán elnök az 1905. január 24-i választmányi ülésen már bemutatta a tervnek pontosan megfelelően a Magyar Nyelv első füzetét. A füzetből 1100 pél- dányt nyomtattak, 700-at a tagok számára, 300-at mutatványszámnak és 100-at a könyvárusok részére. Az elnök bemutatta az 1904. évről szóló számadást és az 1905. évre javasolt költségvetést. 2. Hogy milyen gondja volt a vezetőségnek a népnyelvi gyűjtésre, azt igazolja az 1905. évi január 24-i választmányi ülésen hozott határozat. Eszerint „addig is, amíg a népnyelvi gyűjtést rendszeresen megkezdhetik, a Nagy Szótár anyagából azt, a mi a Magyar Tájszótárban nincs meg, a Magyar Nyelvben közzéteszik” (1905: 188). Ezen az ülésen is regisztrálták a rendes tagoknak felvetteket. A Szily Kál- mán ajánlatára elfogadott 53 rendes tag között volt például Baksay Sándor Duna- melléki református püspök (Kunszentmiklós), Csánki Dezső országos levéltár - nok (Budapest), Goldziher Ignác orientalista egyetemi tanár (Budapest), Marczali Henrik történész egyetemi tanár (Budapest), Móricz Zsigmond író (Budapest), id.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Blackberries
    WILD BLACKBERRIES Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape Professionals Of the eleven species of Rubus in Cali- fornia, four were introduced primarily from Eurasia. Most species of wild blackberry, also called brambles, pro- vide important sources of food and cover for many birds and mammals. Four species, however, are considered weeds. Two of these are non-natives, cutleaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) (Fig. 1) and Himalaya blackberry (Ru- bus discolor [=R. procerus]) (Fig. 2). In addition, two native species can also be weeds under certain conditions. For example, thimbleberry (Rubus parvi- florus) (Fig. 3) competes with conifers during establishment in reforested areas, and California blackberry (Rubus Figure 1. Cutleaf blackberry. Figure 2. Himalaya blackberry. ursinus [=R. vitifolius]) (Fig. 4) can in- fest areas adjacent to streams and ditches. Of these weedy species, the most common, vigorous, and trouble- some is Himalaya blackberry. IDENTIFICATION Of the four weedy wild blackberries, thimbleberry is the only nonvining species. It also lacks prickly stems and has a simple leaf (no leaflets). Both Himalaya and cutleaf blackberry have five-angled stems, but Himalaya black- berry can easily be distinguished from the other wild blackberries by its five distinct leaflets, each leaflet toothed and generally oval in shape. By com- parison, cutleaf blackberry has five very deeply lobed leaflets and Califor- Figure 3. Thimbleberry. Figure 4. California blackberry. nia blackberry has only three leaflets. Not all wild blackberry leaves are de- ciduous—many remain evergreen. This 1 inch across with five white or pink germinate in fall and spring. Repro- is an important feature for chemical petals.
    [Show full text]